Recently, I wrote a response to an article urging English teachers in Malaysia to teach only in English. Aside from my response there were at least one other who wrote a very well thought-through piece.

An English-only approach was a common sentiment you would find in language pedagogic textbooks and manuals published decades ago. With the expansion of applied linguistics, the current community of language educators and scholars acknowledge that the language learning process involves more than just picking up new language knowledge and abilities through immersion. Gone are the days when language is just considered a cognitive exercise. These days, we have other affective variables to consider such as anxiety, stress, motivation, and the list goes on. This was the idea that I had hoped my write-up would convey. How wrong I was. Not only did nobody understand what I wrote, I got a few interesting comments as well. I doubt that anyone who had read my article, or the one that I was responding to, or any of the other articles written in response to what I wrote, or to what I was responding to, would read this blog post.

So, what did I have in mind when I responded? Frankly. I was not quite sure, since I emailed that the first thing after I got up on a Sunday morning. I went off to organize an alumni get together for my Faculty. The next thing I knew, I was getting FB messages congratulating me for publishing. Thank you, but I don't think I had really "published" anything. I'm pretty sure MI is interested in creating dialogue, especially controversial ones, and quickly uploaded the draft I had sent. Hey, who doesn't want to expand their readership?

But let me tell you what I had in mind the night before, when I wrote the response. I had in mind to inform readers of MI that language learners, especially those who come from a multicultural country, do not enter the language classroom as blank slates. They have a stock of words, a pre-existing lexicon, which is waiting to be manipulated and used to the max. God has given us creative abilities and the intelligence to use old information to make sense of new ones. Some people call this common sense, by the way. This was my first point. I said we should not refrain our students from using their first language, or native language, or mother tongue (whichever term you think is politically correct). But never did I say we should teach in students' language (although in some instances where you have real beginners, some instructions in the students' language may be necessary).

The second point was merely a presentation of sociolinguistic issues pertinent to the linguistic ecology of Malaysia, or of SEA for that matter. I do believe that Malaysians are proud to have our discourse identity, and I do believe also that we know that there is a variety that we need to learn if we want to be understood by other speakers of English. I thought that this was quite clear in the paragraph where I described us as being schizophrenic, being torn between two sides. Why do I say this? Because from a World Englishes perspective, Malaysian English could become a real deal, just like how Singapore English is becoming a real deal, and these real deals would be equivalent to the real REAL deals in the likes of American English or Australian English or...

Nonetheless, what's done is done. The article is out there. Perhaps I'll lose my job after this? I don't know. Otakpusing, in his/her comment on my article, implies that I should be fired.

Every semester, my teaching load would include at least one writing course.

Teaching in a classroom where you have students who do not share a similar English writing background is downright challenging. For some of my students, their writing experience is confined to a sentence, but there are also those who come with paragraph- or essay-writing experiences.

What do you do when you have students with differing writing abilities? Obviously, expecting everyone to be at the same page, and at the same pace, would be silly. Another aspect that you may want to think of is how they had learned writing. Some of my students memorized essays in high school. Some of them just copied off from a 'model essay book'. Some actually have a discussion or debate about what to write about before actually writing. This is a problem for me too as I have grown accustomed to having the freedom and liberty to discuss anything under the sun. However, for many of my students, discussion is difficult to fathom. So what do I do? Do I lower the standards? Do I send everyone off for remedial English? (I've done this a couple times).

First, get them into the habit of writing. Assigning regular writing tasks may help students develop the confidence and habit for writing. These writing tasks are useful as they can show you how they are doing with grammar and how big their lexicon is.

Second, decide on a topic for them, especially those that they are familiar with. In cultures where it is common to be told what to do, students do appreciate a more explicit guidance from their teachers. I'm not saying that this is the best way, but perhaps giving them the liberty right at the beginning would terrify them. If and when you give a topic, make sure the topic is something that they will have words to describe.

Third, have multiple drafts. This allows them to really see how they progress. Having multiple drafts could be time-wasting too if not done properly. I have noticed multiple-draft essays containing the same mistakes found in earlier drafts. Perhaps a more rigid evaluation can follow the progress of newer and 'improved' drafts.

Fourth, do not kill yourself by giving too many long-written assignments. You should know why you shouldn't do this.

Fifth, do not kill yourself by giving too much feedback. Feedback may be valuable for a basic class, but as writers, especially EFL ones advance more in their writing proficiency, teachers can lessen their feedback to just general comments, or comments about content. We need to encourage our students to take initiative to assess their own work.

This morning my supervisor emailed me asking me if I would be interested to participate in our Faculty's conference later this week. I was feeling like an opportunist today, so I said yes.

I only got to work on the poster this evening and spent about an hour working on it. I was not quite sure how I am supposed to design the poster, but I would imagine something with important catch phrases and keywords with minimal texts. That's what I did. As I was creating this poster, I got to thinking, am I on the right track? My train of thought while making the poster was quite direct, with very little interruption. It felt like I had a direction to go. This encourages me but at the same time scares me. How would I know that the direction I'm taking is not too simplistic? Is it so uncritical that I am able to go from point A to point B without much interference?

I reckon that despite having a seemingly simple research design, the depth of analysis would be great and guided. Great because I hope the analysis will go deep into the data, and guided because I hope that I won't be directed by my bias. Subjectivity is good, intersubjectivity might be better, but having biases may be problematic. Guided is also good because then you get to sell your research methodology to other interested researchers. This helps qualify my research as being valid too, when the methodology is transferable and applicable in different contexts.

So, to ask myself again, am I on the right track? I don't think I'll every be on the right track. I don't even think it is a question worth asking. The important question is am I on the right frame of mind? Research is fuelled by interest for learning. As long as there is an interest out there in what I am working on, I think I am on the right track.

I really thought the Lonely Island was the one who coined "YOLO". Boy was I wrong. It was Drake.
Yes, I have been silent for the past few months. It really is difficult to find time to write, when I am exerting so much energy in writing up stuff for the office and for studies. A little piece of advice for those out there who are thinking of graduate studies. Don't do it with a full time job. Look for scholarships. But we know that scholarships in the field of humanities are hard to come by.

If you're thinking of doing a PhD in humanities or social sciences perhaps you should read this. I did not quite read through the blog, but I think it is along the lines of a PhD student realizing towards the end that the PhD he/she was working on might not be really what he/she wants. Nonetheless, he/she assures us that if we realize that PhD is not for us just before we defend our dissertation, we don't need to be alarmed. There is still hope for us.

My PhD journey has been quite interesting so far. This afternoon I spent at least two hours looking through a list of self-referencing pronoun "I" clusters with their accompanying verbs. I was trying to decide which one is factive and which one is existential. I don't think I went far. But I did learn that it is not entirely up to the verb to decide whether the meaning of that verb is factive or existential. The context of utterance is important as well, especially if you're looking for existential presuppositions. At times it is within the noun phrase itself, existential information, that is.

Amidst research nonsense, I have been blessed to inherit a writing course that a colleague had been teaching. She had to bequeath the class to me because of some scheduling conflict. I am still not sure how I feel about this. I like teaching writing. Helping people express their ideas have always been fun for me. But fun ceases to be fun when you are dealing with writers with different writing abilities.

I am coming close to my six-month sabbatical. I'm taking off from my regular job to really just focus on writing up my dissertation. Who knows, I will write more frequently.